The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-22
PRYOR MAKES HIS PLEA.
JUSTICE HARLAN BOUND TO RUSH
THE CASE THROUGH.

rected to Have Certain Parts OF the
record Ready for Examination this
Morning-A Large Crowd in the
Court Room.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2l-Long before 1880
o'clock this morning, which was the hour
for the hearing of the application for writ
of error in the Chicago Anarchist cases, the
conference room of the United States Su-
preme Court in the basement of the capitol
was uncomfortably crowded with lawyers
and newspaper men who were waiting to
hear the proceedings. John Randolph
Tucker, Gen. Pryor, Gen. b. F. Butler,
Capt Blake and all the other counsel for the
condemned prisoners were present and in
whispered consultation but at 1880 o'clock
neither Justice Harlan nor tine record in the
Eases had arrived. Five minutes later,
however, two men came in carrying with
difficulty large blue Uncovered trunk,
corded with half inch rope which contained
the voluminous record and under the weight
of which the bearers visibly staggered. At
II 40 o'clock Justice Harlan entered the
conference room, and after greeting the
counsel and directing that all of the news
paper men be allowed to come in and take
such places as best suited their convenience,
he seated himself at his desk and called for
attention.
OPENING THE PROCEEDINGS.
AS soon as the room had become quiet
Justice Harlan, without waiting for any
formal motion or application from the pris
oners' counsel, said with slow deliberation:
This is an application for a writ of error
to bring up for review by the Supreme
Court of the United States the judgment
of the Supreme Court of the State Of Illi-
nois, involving the liberty of one of the
petitioners and the lives of the others. The
time fixed for executing the sentence of
death is, l am informed, Nov IL. Under
the circumstances it is my duty to facilitate
an early decision of any ques-
ion in the case of which the Su-
preme Court of the United States may
properly take cognizance 1t | should
allow a writ of error it is quite certain that
the counsel would have to repeat before
that court the argument which they pro-
pose now to make before me. On the other
hand, if / should refuse the writ the defend
ants would be at liberty to renew their ap-
plication before any other Justice of the
Supreme Court and as human life and
liberty are involved that Justice might feel
obliged, notwithstanding the previous re-
fusal of the writ, to look into the case and
determine for himself whether a writ of
error should be allowed. If he also refused
the defendants could take their
papers to some other, mem
Der of the court, and so on
until each Justice had been applied to, or
until such Justice granted the writ. In this
way it is manifest that delays might occur
that would be very embarrassing in view of
the short time intervening between this day
and the date fixed for carrying into effect
the Judgment of the State court As the
case is one of very serious character in
whatever aspect it may be re-
garded / deem it proper to
make the order which l now do that the
counsel present this application to the court
in open session to the end that early and
final action may be had upon the question
whether that court has jurisdiction to re-
view the Judgment in this case. There is
no reason why it may not be presented to
the court at its session to-day. The coun-
sci may state that the application is made
TO the court pursuant to my decision.
PRYOR MAKES THE APPLICATION.
When the United States Supreme Court re-
assembled to-day, ten minutes after the usual
hour, the court room was crowded with
people waiting anxiously to hear the petit
tion for a writ of error in the cases of the
Chicago Anarchists which it was known
would be made to the full court in compi-
ance with Justice Harlan's order. AS soon
as the candidates for admission to the bar had
been disposed of Gen. Pryor, of the counsel
Of the condemned Anarchists, rose and ad-
dressed the court in support of the petition
for a writ of error After reciting brifly
the history of the case, and stating that
seven of the prisoners were now under sen
tence Of death, Mr.. Pryor said he would
call the attention of the court to only two
points which he relied upon to show that
the case at the bar presented Federal ques
tons, and that such questions empowered
this court to take jurisdiction of
it and to grant the writ of error
prayed for. The first of these points
related, he said, to the jury by which the
prisoners were tried, The Legislature of
the State of Illinois passed in March, 1874
that is, after the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment to the constitutional law to
regulate and govern the impeachment of
lllries in the State courts. By virtue of
that law the jury for the trial of criminal
case might be made up, in part at least, of
jurors who had formed an opinion with re-
gard to the guilt or innocence of persons
accused, jurors who were partial and even
prejudiced men. The law made it possible
to put into the jury box men who had
formed an opinion as to prisoners guilt,
which could not be removed except by
strong evidence.
DONE IN THIS CASE.
This he believed had been done in the case
unuer consideration. Ten. Pryor then read
extracts from the record to show that
among the talismen in the Trial Court
There were men who admitted that they had
read newspapers and formed an opinion
with regard to the case and were therefore
partial. He said it abundantly appeared in
the record that at least two OF the jurors
VINO actually sat in the trial were persons
having prepossessions and preiudices of the
character described. Thus by the action of
the lower court, he said, the Illinois statute
mad been made to deprive the accused of
tae right of trial by an impartial jury, had
abridged their privileges as citizens OF the
thlted States, and was about to deprive
law.
The Chief Justice remarked that the only
question for the court was whether the
statute was constitutional. II the court
erred IN its administration of the statute
that was question for the States courts.
PRYoR's SECOND POINT.
Gen. Pryor's second point was that the
petitioners had been compelled III the Trial
Sourt TO be witnesses against themselves
some OF them were on the stand and in
spite of the protests of their counsel they
were compelled TO submit to an unrestrnlned
dissemination and to criminate them
serves. Compelling a man to testify against
hl1self is not due process of law. Further
more, after their arrest the police, without
any DrOcasS of brniya oman thpir